Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37888431›Full record

ReviewJournal of Intelligence2023

How Metaphors of Organizational Accidents and Their Graphical Representations Can Guide (or Bias) the Understanding and Analysis of Risks.

Fabrizio Bracco, Martina Ivaldi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Grounding Cognition in Perceptual Experience.Journal of Intelligence · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Fabrizio BraccoDepartment of Educational Sciences, University of Genova, 16121 Genova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9430-1389
Martina IvaldiDepartment of Educational Sciences, University of Genova, 16121 Genova, Italy.ORCID 0009-0000-6252-3286

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The history of safety science has seen the flourishing of several models and metaphors aimed at describing organizational accidents' dynamics. Metaphors and their graphical representations are powerful tools to frame risks and adverse events in socio-technical systems; they help in coping with systemic complexity but can also become a constraint and even bias the understanding of our environment. This paper aims to investigate how metaphors and their graphical representations influence the comprehension of organizational accidents, how they could be misinterpreted, and, as a result, generate misunderstandings of events. To address these questions, we analyze three paradigmatic accident causation models, typical of three phases in the evolution of models in the last century, describing how the related metaphors and depictions could influence the perception and understanding of risk factors. In addition, we present some possible misunderstandings that could be produced by the metaphor and graphical features of representations, with a particular focus on safety outcomes. Eventually, we provide a framework with the basic characteristics of an effective model and metaphor for the description and analysis of organizational accidents in modern complex socio-technical systems. This framework could be used as a guide for proposing new and more effective models in safety science.

Indexed as

conceptualizing safetymetaphorsorganizational accidentsrisk perceptionvisual models

Identifiers

PMID37888431
PMCPMC10607274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.